Nah, entirely understandable. Hateful little rag. As it happens, I spotted that headline on the paper stand as I picked up my morning paper. Wasn't quite the same front page splash on the Telegraph, I have to say, but the Mail's page, as Stoner illustrates, went big on it.

should he be found guilty could have serious implications as he was involved in setting up the online porn filter

What implications?

The illegal stuff he was (allegedly) looking at was already blocked in the UK (by the IWF I think).
The new block implemented with his advice affects content which is not illegal i.e. adult content rather than child porn.

The difference is here the DM are after the peado in the other case its going after somone who had a very loose working relationship with one. In this case the DM do not question Camerons judgment. Its been flawed before with advisers too. Think about a current court case.

The general 'idea' of this thread is correct - i.e. the Mail's opinion pieces are mostly a disgraceful collection of petty and bigoted views with a good dose of hypocrisy thrown in.

However in this case the OP (one of the 'usual suspects' on political-type threads) has fallen prey to his own prejudices. Amusing in its own right as it is amazing how often 'right-on' individuals are actually driven by petty motives themselves.

Let's not get too much into the potential for point-scoring, though, the actual substance of the 'story' is pretty disturbing - whoever chooses to report it.

the actual substance of the 'story' is pretty disturbing - whoever chooses to report it.

Herein lies one of the problems of both the Mail itself, and the self-proclaimed dailymailophobes (Like that a lot!) - The paper has become such a useless, and rightly demonised rag, that it is seemingly no longer able to report anything serious with anyone taking it seriously.

I am not only against it for its poisonous brand of 'the country is going to the dogs since they let immigrants in / banned the birch / gave women the vote - delete as appropriate'.

It is such a crushingly obvious little rag with frankly astonishingly hypocritical columnists who really are a waste of oxygen. Anyone who is taken in by it really has to have a long look at themselves.

And at least you had the grace to accept that you might look a tad silly - a sadly under-appreciated quality.

IN CMD defence I doubt he would have used him had he known but this as well as appointing coulson to Press - apparently he did not even asked him about hacking- has shown his judgement to be a little questionable - the party he represents told me that though

Not sure we can do much about this

DM is poor - it has not done a hatchet job on CMD here as it did with Ed and Harriet [ its almost like they have an agenda rather than principles] - not that I think he deserves it- is it true that he "resigned" once they found out about the investigation and was not sacked?

the difference between this and the harriet/dromey/patsy car crash is that they acted whilst with knowledge of who and what PIE were. You cant seriously think that anyone in No. 10 would have known about, and continued to work quietly with, Rock?

Stoner - Member
You cant seriously think that anyone in No. 10 would have known about, and continued to work quietly with, Rock?

and yet...

He refused several times to confirm whether Rock was confronted about the allegations before the police were alerted, saying only that Downing Street had informed the National Crime Agency (NCA) immediately. However, he did say Rock resigned on 12 February and was not arrested until the early hours of 13 February.

The spokesman also refused to reveal whether the allegation of inappropriate behaviour had been dealt with by Ed Llewellyn, Cameron's chief of staff and an old friend of Rock.

Herein lies one of the problems of both the Mail itself, and the self-proclaimed dailymailophobes (Like that a lot!) - The paper has become such a useless, and rightly demonised rag, that it is seemingly no longer able to report anything serious with anyone taking it seriously.

Worryingly I keep meeting people who take the Express / Mail as gospel and go on about all the terrible issues ruining today's society, like public sector pensions and nurses being paid real money......

However in this case the OP (one of the 'usual suspects' on political-type threads) has fallen prey to his own prejudices. Amusing in its own right as it is amazing how often 'right-on' individuals are actually driven by petty motives themselves.

I don't think he has. We've seen the issue reported - but as of yet no smear campaign in the vein of the one that engulfed Labour - ie a scattergun approach suggesting that the 'Labour Leadership' were apologists for child porn. That's a far far more insidious and wide ranging inference.

Stoner - Member
the difference between this and the harriet/dromey/patsy car crash is that they acted whilst with knowledge of who and what PIE were. You cant seriously think that anyone in No. 10 would have known about, and continued to work quietly with, Rock?

unless....

This actually happened in Queensland. There was an activist accusing all the high and mighty about a conspiracy to protect paedophiles.

Poor lady looked like a nutcase, but sure enough after a few years of pressure, the carefully constructed defences of the high and mighty crumbled.

One of those jailed was the leader of a major party, judges and high level policemen were jailed or committed suicide.

So don't assume it can't happen here. A ring of high level paedos can repel all attacks for a long time.